The Politically, Lame Logic Of “What Difference Does it Make?”

On June 5th, 2014, Democratic Senator, Chris Murphy (Conn.) said in a televised interview on CNN, “It doesn’t matter if someone falls off a boat or jumps off the boat.”

Senator Murphy, of course, was referring to Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl’s release, and how the military was expected to save him whether he had voluntarily deserted his post or if he was captured and held prisoner by the Taliban while going out for a jaywalk in the desert.

Like Hillary Clinton, Senator Murphy has invoked the “What difference does it make?” response of politically lame logic, for saving or not saving one or more American soldiers.

That statement seems is the Democratic Party’s new way of explaining why action or inaction in a national security crisis requires no reason or explanation. No matter what the outcome is, whether it is good or bad, we should always accept the consequences and not question the process leading up to the decision or lack thereof.

So much for the transparency that President Obama promised our entire country.

If you ask a psychologist why people say “What difference does it make?” to answer the question back, they will probably tell you it usually means that person has no suitable or acceptable response to the question in the first place.

It is a stall tactic, one bathed in deceit, and one that is increasing in the halls of the United States Senate and the Obama White House..

This past week, many supporters of Obama’s decision to release 5 high-level, Taliban generals, in exchange for Bowe Bergdahl, have used the reckless logic that when the war is over in Afghanistan, we have to release those 5 generals anyway.

So, in essence, they are saying there is nothing wrong in giving the devil his due now instead of later. So what if the inevitable planning and execution of terroristic attacks on innocent civilians or American soldiers occur earlier rather than later?

What difference does it make, right?

The difference, in this situation, as it was in Benghazi, is that the war is not over. The United States military is still engaged in combat over in Afghanistan with the Taliban. By releasing those 5 generals, we are making it easier for the Taliban to plan and execute new attacks to harm or defeat our military.

Delaying or preventing terrorism is the smart and the only competent thing to do.

It is also the responsibility of Congress and the President of the United States to insure that no deals or decisions are made that empower, or contribute to the growth of the enemy. In other words, aiding or abetting the enemy by returning to them high-level generals that will inevitably help them plan more efficient warfare against America.

This logic is what almost every American citizen understands and expects, but what Obama, Senator Murphy, and some other Democrats do not.

Even worse, and to show how insanely, pathetic this kind of logic evolves, take the comment by Senator Harry Reid this week when he said of the 5 Taliban generals released, “I’m glad to get rid of these five people.”

What exactly did Harry Reid mean by that? Does he believe that these 5 generals are going to retire into the mountains of Afghanistan, and forget about the Muslim, jihad against America that they have sworn their lives on?

Of course not. They are going to come back, and strike at America with a vengeance. Word has it that they may have already rejoined the Taliban army and have even been promoted to higher levels of rank.

Harry Reid, foolishly, has mistaken those 5 Taliban generals for the likes of Cliven Bundy and his horse-mounted, patriotic ranchers. Harry Reid doesn’t realize though that the BLM will not be able to remove those terrorists and help American soldiers when those generals initiate their next attack.

Harry Reid also invoked the new democratic response of “What difference does it make?” when he was asked by reporters why he was the only senator called the night before the trade and informed about the Bergdahl exchange.

“I’m not sure I’m the only one. I mean this has made a big deal over nothing, “he said. “The whole deal is, is it Friday or Saturday? What difference does it make? What difference does it make?”

He even said it twice.

Again, the elusive and circumventing response of what difference does it make was used by another democrat to avoid answering a critical question. It is almost like every democrat in Washington was sent the same email directive that said, “If you are asked an invasive question reply back with the question, “What difference does it make?”

The official reason for the secrecy of Bowe Bergdahl’s release has been changed twice in the last week. First, the White House told us that Bergdahl was ill and quite possibly near death. Then the story was that Bergdahl would have been killed by the Taliban if word about the ongoing negotiations was leaked out.

Obviously, it does make a difference to the Obama administration when they decide to ignore the law and the deadly ramifications of trading away 5 of the world’s most dangerous terrorists who are planning to destroy us.

In America today, a mindless onslaught of indifference has infected half of the country. It is that half of America that is very happy and content to let a lawless and radical regime do whatever they please and never be held accountable.

It is that half of America that the purveyors of “What difference does it make?” preys on and tries to convince that they are on the right side of history. It is that half of the constituency that has no clue how deceptively they are being brainwashed into contributing to the downfall of America.

When Hillary Clinton, at the Benghazi hearings, said, “What difference does it make?” she did not realize what a dangerous and destructive ideology she had put into motion. The statement itself is one that harbors ignorance, arrogance, and callous disregard for transparency on a political and national level.

The simple act of trying to make a question appear meaningless and without merit is how some politicians in Washington, D.C. try to escape their responsibilities and failed policies. It is their easy and politically lame way of trying to convince us all that they are smarter than the rest of us and that we should all mind our own business.

After all, what difference does it make, right?

Joseph E. Rathjen is a freelance writer and an Opinion Writer at 1World Online – America’s Fastest Growing Social Research Engine.

4 thoughts on “The Politically, Lame Logic Of “What Difference Does it Make?””

Wasn’t it the attitude of the Bush administration after no weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) were found in Iran, “what difference does it make?” Wasn’t that pretty much the attitude of the Reagan administration about the Iran Contra scandal, or Nixon about Watergate? I think it’s partisan politics to claim that “what difference does it make” is a tool used only by Democrats.

You’re probably right, Doobster. However, I don’t ever remember George Bush or Ronald Reagan verbally throwing that term around so loosely in public or at congressional hearings. They should be responsible enough to answer a question properly without discarding it with such a callous answer. If the IRS comes knocking at your door see how they will react if you throw that answer at them. Anyone who uses it is doing to so to evade accountability. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

They probably didn’t speak those exact words, but it’s pretty much the message they were communicating. I think, at some point, after being asked the same question over and over again and giving the same answer over and over again, anyone would get frustrated enough to blurt out something like that. What’s done is done and it can’t be undone. There may be something to be learned by going back and reviewing what led up to something with tragic or negative consequences, but that’s not going to change what happened.

And from my perspective, it remains to be seen whether or not swapping five Taliban commanders for one army POW will have tragic consequences. I certainly hope not, but what’s done is done.

By going back it may not change what happened, but it may prevent it from happening again. I think that should be the most important intent of these hearings and investigation, not partisan bickering. On that I agree with you.